Recent Judicial Decisions
| Published date | 01 July 1998 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X9807100310 |
| Author | Rob R. Jerrard |
| Date | 01 July 1998 |
| Subject Matter | Recent Judicial Decisions |
ROB R. JERRARD, LLB, LLM
Legal Correspondent for The Police Journal
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Interview? Police Question to Publican Amounted to Interview
Batley
v.
Director
of
Public Prosecutions Queen's Bench Decision
(1998) The Times, March 5
The findings
The justices had found that no interview had taken place within the
meaning of Code C, prior to the administering of a caution to Batley it
had been impracticable for Batley to have read or signed the notebook,
and that there had been no breach of the codes.
Batley was questioned on March 17, 1997 and then cautioned but
not arrested. Afterwards, Police Sergeant Scrivens wrote a note of the
conversation which had taken place while he sat outside the public
house in the patrol car with Police Constable Mitchell.
Batley was not allowed an opportunity to check the accuracy of the
police sergeant's note or to endorse it as a correct record of the
conversation which had taken place between the sergeant and Batley as
the police thought the atmosphere inside the public house to be too
volatile and threatening to re-enter.
The facts
Having entered the public house, the sight the officers met was such that
any reasonable police officer would have suspected that an offence was
being committed and, in those circumstances, that Batley was one of
those persons committing it.
When Batley was asked what the arrangements were, that was an
intimation for him to state whether he had a defence to s.59 of the 1964
Act. Batley might answer the question in a number of ways. The
fundamental thing was that he was being asked to incriminate himself if
he had committed the offence.
In the circumstances, that question ought not to be asked without a
caution being administered. Much potential probative material had
arisen out of the conversation which preceded the caution. The
conversation amounted to an interview within the meaning of
para.ll.I.A
of Code C.
The justices found that it was not practicable for Batley to be
afforded the facility to endorse or dispute the accuracy of the police
record. Batley was not provided with that opportunity until his trial. The
justices were wrong. The provisions of Code C did not confine
themselves to an immediacy of opportunity of checking to confirm or
deny the accuracy of a record.
July 1998 The Police Journal 265
To continue reading
Request your trial